Clubs to withhold Eng. players from tour?

Clubs to withhold Eng. players from tour?

Post by Andrew Forsy » Tue, 03 Mar 1998 04:00:00


I read in the Evening Standard today that Newcastle and Sarries have
said that they may not release international players for England's
summer tour.  Dallaglio has said he will tour because he is bound by
his RFU contract.

Does anyone have any more info on this?  Is it an EPRUC move or just
these two clubs?

Well, that's my excuse sorted.  "We would've beaten the All Blacks
but..."
---- ARF -----

 
 
 

Clubs to withhold Eng. players from tour?

Post by Phil » Tue, 03 Mar 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

>I read in the Evening Standard today that Newcastle and Sarries have
>said that they may not release international players for England's
>summer tour.  Dallaglio has said he will tour because he is bound by
>his RFU contract.

I heard that it was Saints rather than Newcastle.

Quote:
>Does anyone have any more info on this?  Is it an EPRUC move or just
>these two clubs?

It appears to be the CEs of the clubs.

Quote:
>Well, that's my excuse sorted.  "We would've beaten the All Blacks
>but..."

I have never started planning my excuses this far ahead, but you could be
right...

 
 
 

Clubs to withhold Eng. players from tour?

Post by John Willia » Tue, 03 Mar 1998 04:00:00

Quote:


>>I read in the Evening Standard today that Newcastle and Sarries have
>>said that they may not release international players for England's
>>summer tour.  Dallaglio has said he will tour because he is bound by
>>his RFU contract.

>I heard that it was Saints rather than Newcastle.

Yep I heard it was Saints, and Saracens were considering the possibility.

Quote:
>>Does anyone have any more info on this?  Is it an EPRUC move or just
>>these two clubs?

Apparently Northampton and Saracens are the only clubs whose players do not
have an international release clause in their contracts.

The Saints CE said he was partly making the announcement to force the two
parties (RFU and clubs) to face the issues of a crowded domestic and
international season. Some hope there.

Woodward has said regarding the tour (involving tests v SA, NZ x 2 and Aus)
that it was a legacy from the last management. He personally thinks the tour
is unnecessary and puts too big a strain on the players, but that the tour
will be honoured in full, and with enthusiasm. [Hmmmm.... something of a
contradiction there I think :-).]

All the best

John Williams.

 
 
 

Clubs to withhold Eng. players from tour?

Post by chris.eger.. » Wed, 04 Mar 1998 04:00:00



Quote:



> >>I read in the Evening Standard today that Newcastle and Sarries have
> >>said that they may not release international players for England's
> >>summer tour.  Dallaglio has said he will tour because he is bound by
> >>his RFU contract.

> >I heard that it was Saints rather than Newcastle.

I read this morning that it was started off by Keith Barwell, Chairman of
Northampton and then quickly supported by Nigel Wray, Chairman at Sarries and
then the ubiquitous Sir John Hall, Chairman of Newcastle.

Quote:
> Yep I heard it was Saints, and Saracens were considering the possibility.

> >>Does anyone have any more info on this?  Is it an EPRUC move or just
> >>these two clubs?

> Apparently Northampton and Saracens are the only clubs whose players do >not have an international release clause in their contracts.

A mere excuse.

Quote:
> The Saints CE said he was partly making the announcement to force the > > two parties (RFU and clubs) to face the issues of a crowded domestic and
> international season. Some hope there.

So small-minded jealousies come before the international team? HOW ARROGANT
DO THESE PRATS HAVE TO GET, BEFORE SOMEONE DOES SOMETHING? Anyway, who
decided to expand the Premiership to 14 clubs? Who decided to run a
meaningless competition when internationals are on when they could be
scheduling league matches? Who are really blocking up progress?
Ermmmmmm...........

Naturally, Barwell is talking tripe. (The original interview was in Rugby
World - I think) It's all posturing around the question of contracts for club
or country. Rather than focussing on a proper structure for the game, once
again the club chairmen are trying to take over rugby.

Is nobody going to get rid of these half-wits, who spent millions with no
hope of getting it back yet they expecting the rest of rugby to bail them
out? The biggest thing that would help domestic rugby out would be a
successful England side. But I wouldnt expect Hall or anyone else to see
sense. The one comment that really got me foaming was Hall saying he knew
more when the players were tired than Woodward. Been on any coaching courses
recently, Sir John?

Quote:
> Woodward has said regarding the tour (involving tests v SA, NZ x 2 and > >Aus that it was a legacy from the last management. He personally thinks the >tour  is unnecessary and puts too big a strain on the players, but that the tour
> will be honoured in full, and with enthusiasm. [Hmmmm.... something of a
> contradiction there I think :-).]

John, you wouldn't expect me to agree with Woodward and I'm not going to
disappoint you. What better experience for the players to take an extended
period in the Southern Hemisphere? Next summer we definitely do want the
players to rest - only the Australia Test, I presume? - but surely, an
extended training camp for the players from August to the end of September
with warm-up matches throughout October. The clubs are hardly likely to agree
to that.

Chris

Quote:
> All the best

> John Williams.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
 
 
 

Clubs to withhold Eng. players from tour?

Post by John Willia » Wed, 04 Mar 1998 04:00:00

Quote:





>> >>I read in the Evening Standard today that Newcastle and Sarries have
>> >>said that they may not release international players for England's
>> >>summer tour.  Dallaglio has said he will tour because he is bound by
>> >>his RFU contract.
>I read this morning that it was started off by Keith Barwell, Chairman of
>Northampton and then quickly supported by Nigel Wray, Chairman at Sarries and
>then the ubiquitous Sir John Hall, Chairman of Newcastle.
>> Apparently Northampton and Saracens are the only clubs whose players do
>>not have an international release clause in their contracts.
>A mere excuse.
>> The Saints CE said he was partly making the announcement to force the
>> two parties (RFU and clubs) to face the issues of a crowded domestic and
>> international season. Some hope there.
>So small-minded jealousies come before the international team? HOW ARROGANT
>DO THESE PRATS HAVE TO GET, BEFORE SOMEONE DOES SOMETHING? Anyway, who
>decided to expand the Premiership to 14 clubs? Who decided to run a
>meaningless competition when internationals are on when they could be
>scheduling league matches? Who are really blocking up progress?
>Ermmmmmm...........

I think the whole point of the Cheltenham and Gloucester Cup was to give a
competition where less experienced players could take advantage of the absence
of the International players. That's certainly how its has worked out at
Leicester, with 2nd/3rd team players getting a chance to play in the same side
as people like Stransky and Serevi.

Quote:
>Naturally, Barwell is talking tripe. (The original interview was in Rugby
>World - I think) It's all posturing around the question of contracts for club
>or country. Rather than focussing on a proper structure for the game, once
>again the club chairmen are trying to take over rugby.

Sure he is talking with his tongue in his cheek, but the point still remains
that English international players who were Lions will have played through two
summers, hitting maybe 90 games over that time. Then, a limited break before
next season, with 26 league games before anything else is even considered.

Plenty of players have shown an alarming dip in form this season, which can be
at least partly put down to fatigue.

Quote:
>Is nobody going to get rid of these half-wits, who spent millions with no
>hope of getting it back yet they expecting the rest of rugby to bail them
>out? The biggest thing that would help domestic rugby out would be a
>successful England side. But I wouldnt expect Hall or anyone else to see
>sense. The one comment that really got me foaming was Hall saying he knew
>more when the players were tired than Woodward. Been on any coaching courses
>recently, Sir John?
>> Woodward has said regarding the tour (involving tests v SA, NZ x 2 and
>> Aus that it was a legacy from the last management. He personally thinks the
>> tour  is unnecessary and puts too big a strain on the players, but that the tour
>> will be honoured in full, and with enthusiasm. [Hmmmm.... something of a
>> contradiction there I think :-).]
>John, you wouldn't expect me to agree with Woodward and I'm not going to
>disappoint you. What better experience for the players to take an extended
>period in the Southern Hemisphere?

That depends on which players. The majority of the Lions have already had
stacks of experience in the last 12 months. A break is needed.

Lots of people were saying games v Aus, SA, NZ twice on four consecutive
Saturdays was excessive last autumn. Now there is a similar sequence of games
this summer, over 5 weeks, away from home. Big difference. The RFU are
screwing the players for every penny they can get, just like the clubs. A
plague on both their houses.

Quote:
>Next summer we definitely do want the
>players to rest - only the Australia Test, I presume? - but surely, an
>extended training camp for the players from August to the end of September
>with warm-up matches throughout October. The clubs are hardly likely to agree
>to that.

Dallollipop and Leonard have both had breaks from club rugby owing to fatigue.
Johnson missed his first league game for Leicester in ages v Bristol. Its not
going to get any better, and I predict several England players will drop
alarmingly in form over the remainder of this English season.

The payers are playing too much, Chris. It will have to stop or it will all
end in tears.

All the best

John Williams.

 
 
 

Clubs to withhold Eng. players from tour?

Post by Andrew Forsy » Wed, 04 Mar 1998 04:00:00



Quote:

>I heard that it was Saints rather than Newcastle.

Yes it was.  My mistake, sorry.  
---- ARF -----
 
 
 

Clubs to withhold Eng. players from tour?

Post by David Cov » Thu, 05 Mar 1998 04:00:00

Quote:

> Is nobody going to get rid of these half-wits, who spent millions with no
> hope of getting it back yet they expecting the rest of rugby to bail them
> out? The biggest thing that would help domestic rugby out would be a
> successful England side. But I wouldnt expect Hall or anyone else to see
> sense. The one comment that really got me foaming was Hall saying he knew
> more when the players were tired than Woodward. Been on any coaching courses
> recently, Sir John?

        Well, isn't this the price you pay for pro rugby?  And in any case
        what is to be gained by popping off to NZ for the ritual thrashing?
        It's never done any good before and at the moment it makes perfect
        sense.  English rugby doesn't need the likes of SA and NZ - take
        the example of Aussie RL, they can survive quite well without
        the Brits who, in their turn, can do quite nicely without the
        (now) annual ***.

        I can see a situation where English rugby could develop in
        isolation and eventually take over as "the" game purely for
        economic reasons.  Indeed, a combined RL/RU breakaway would seem
        a good way to go given the insistence of the SH RUs on turning
        union into an ersatz version of league.  A good way to go into
        the millenium - turn around the mistakes of a century ago, say
        "stuff you" to NZ et al and let them be big fish in an even
        littler pool.

        Why not?  Makes as much sense as the debilitation of the union
        game by the SH RUs...

Delightfully Different Dave

 
 
 

Clubs to withhold Eng. players from tour?

Post by Paul Bail » Mon, 09 Mar 1998 04:00:00


online.de says...

Quote:

> > Is nobody going to get rid of these half-wits, who spent millions with no
> > hope of getting it back yet they expecting the rest of rugby to bail them
> > out? The biggest thing that would help domestic rugby out would be a
> > successful England side. But I wouldnt expect Hall or anyone else to see
> > sense. The one comment that really got me foaming was Hall saying he knew
> > more when the players were tired than Woodward. Been on any coaching courses
> > recently, Sir John?

>    Well, isn't this the price you pay for pro rugby?

Hasn't rugby (union I mean) been going downhill since it
went professional?  Probably something to do with the crisis
of capitalism ((C) Karl Marx).

Paul

--
Paul Bailey

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/paul.bailey/
--

 
 
 

Clubs to withhold Eng. players from tour?

Post by chris.eger.. » Mon, 09 Mar 1998 04:00:00



Quote:


> Sure he is talking with his tongue in his cheek, but the point still remains
> that English international players who were Lions will have played through two
> summers, hitting maybe 90 games over that time. Then, a limited break before
> next season, with 26 league games before anything else is even considered.

> Plenty of players have shown an alarming dip in form this season, which can be
> at least partly put down to fatigue.

Then ask yourself who agreed to the league commitments - if anybody has got
to cut back on the number of fixtures, it's the clubs first and foremost.
Would you rather have LAwrence Dallaglio missing, eg, Bristol v Wasps, than
England v New Zealand?

Quote:
> >John, you wouldn't expect me to agree with Woodward and I'm not going to
> >disappoint you. What better experience for the players to take an extended
> >period in the Southern Hemisphere?

> That depends on which players. The majority of the Lions have already had
> stacks of experience in the last 12 months. A break is needed.

Yes, a break is needed but commitments have been made. We have to play those
fixtures. And if a cut has to be made, see my earlier comments.

Quote:

> Dallollipop and Leonard have both had breaks from club rugby owing to fatigue.
> Johnson missed his first league game for Leicester in ages v Bristol. Its not
> going to get any better, and I predict several England players will drop
> alarmingly in form over the remainder of this English season.

> The payers are playing too much, Chris. It will have to stop or it will all
> end in tears.

Question John - irrelevant to this debate - but with Johnson dipping in form
(youd probably agree, I think) why wasnt he rested earlier especially with
Van Heerden and Poole in the squad?

I do not buy the argument that more matches against better opposition is
going to do any harm.  Allowing internationals to miss comparatively minor
domestic matches is the key.

Chris

Quote:
> All the best

> John Williams.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
 
 
 

Clubs to withhold Eng. players from tour?

Post by Paul Kenda » Tue, 10 Mar 1998 04:00:00

[snip]

Quote:
> Then ask yourself who agreed to the league commitments - if anybody has got
> to cut back on the number of fixtures, it's the clubs first and foremost.
> Would you rather have LAwrence Dallaglio missing, eg, Bristol v Wasps, than
> England v New Zealand?
> > That depends on which players. The majority of the Lions have already had
> > stacks of experience in the last 12 months. A break is needed.

> Yes, a break is needed but commitments have been made. We have to play those
> fixtures. And if a cut has to be made, see my earlier comments.

As an outsider I would have to agree Chris.  The ERFU better resolve their
problems with the clubs soon or they will risk not playing any of the SH
nations in the immediate future.  All this talk about England not having
enough competition in the 5 Nations will become irrelevant as that will be
their only source of international matches each season.  While the club
owners have a point about the expectations placed on players at present
the situation is no different in the SH.  Maybe they need to streamline
the English domestic season by removing meaningless club matches as you
suggest.  Some thought that the tour to Britain and Ireland last year by
NZ was unnecessary after a demanding season but they toured.  The big
difference is that the players are contracted to the NZRFU not provincial
unions.

England wanted a second test against the All Blacks and in return a
two-test series was scheduled in NZ this year.  I'm sure similar
arrangements were made with SA and Australia.  It's been 13 years since
England last toured NZ and unless the ERFU reciprocate the favour the
English rugby public might have to wait just as long before they see the
All Blacks playing England at Twickenham again.

--
Paul

 
 
 

Clubs to withhold Eng. players from tour?

Post by Steve Hawke » Tue, 10 Mar 1998 04:00:00



Quote:
>I do not buy the argument that more matches against better opposition is
>going to do any harm.  Allowing internationals to miss comparatively minor
>domestic matches is the key.

But isn't that the problem? No matter which club you support, don't you
want to see the best players playing at your local ground? And not just
a 10 second segment on the national news?

Who do you support first? Your Club or Your Country

(for those who live in Cornwall, I think I know the answer!!)
-------------------------------
Steve Hawker
The Kingsholm Chronicle
"Home of the Unbiased Report"
http://www.glawster.demon.co.uk